lsp_references

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is workspace-wide, has HIGH confidence, and is reliable for refactoring impact, which is useful context. It does not explicitly mention side effects, read-only behavior, or any server initialization prerequisites, though 'find references' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief, front-loads the core behavior, and uses a helpful IDE analogy. The confidence note and the one parameter explanation earn their place, though the Args section is slightly redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, a use case, and one optional parameter, and an output schema exists. However, it omits explanations for the required position arguments and does not mention expected file-path or coordinate formats, so an agent may not correctly construct the primary invocation without external LSP knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains include_declaration, while the three required positional parameters file_path, line, and character receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or description. This is a meaningful gap for an LSP tool where coordinate semantics matter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'list every usage of the symbol across the workspace.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and the IDE analogy reinforces intent. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as lsp_definition or lsp_workspace_symbol, but its 'references/every usage' language makes the distinction fairly inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: it is like Shift+F12 and is reliable for assessing impact before refactoring. It does not explicitly state when not to use it compared with lsp_definition or lsp_workspace_symbol, but the refactoring-impact use case is strong enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.